The idea of the scholar with ... "infused science" is ancient and comes from the ignorant and jealous vision that the poor and illiterate classes had "educated" and scholars. "They know all of them", "they believe they know" when, ironically, these criticisms came from people who knew nothing (they had no cultural basis) and believed they knew everything (they were masters only of what they did, cultivate, eat, sleep) .
The scientist can also be presumptuous and firm in his positions: he is therefore not a man of science but a man of faith and as such is not reliable as a scientist.
So in reality the scientific studies we read in the journals of physics, medicine or chemistry are all reliable? Do we have to believe in it with our eyes closed?
No.
The answer is drastic: NO.
There are always cases in bad faith, the scholar who for personal interests falsifies the results or even a whole study, this is about topics that affect relatively little on everyday life (the relationships between the molecules of a plastic material for example) and in those that could affect life if not the immediate survival of human beings (for example, vaccine studies).
Bad faith is always lurking: scientists, researchers and scholars have neither a genetic tare that makes them immune, nor have they taken the vows of holiness, they are men and among them the black sheep can exist. For this reason, the repeatability of the results of a study is a control mechanism: if one is dishonest, it is very difficult for it to be 10, 100 or all the others. The same if the error is in good faith: one wrong but 1000 check. This is also why the elusive "plot" doctor who would hide effective treatments for serious diseases is objectively irrational.
Are there any examples of bad faith scholars who consciously falsified studies?
Lots.